Vision-language models (VLMs) often answer new questions about recurring visual content, where reusing the key-value (KV) cache can avoid re-encoding expensive visual prefixes. Exact-prefix reuse, however, fails when the same visual content appears under a changed prefix. Selective recomputation can recover quality under a small visual-token budget, but only when the right stale tokens are refreshed. Raw-attention selection can waste budget on high-attention tokens with small value-norm proxy scores and on query-irrelevant images. To address these failure modes, we propose CONDUIT, a training-free refresh policy that unifies single- and multi-image reuse as residual-stream restoration. Building on norm-weighted attention, CONDUIT ranks cached visual tokens using cached-key query attention and an accessible pre-output cached-value-norm proxy, then applies empirical image-level relevance amplification before one global selection. With one image, the coefficient is one and the rule reduces to intra-image token selection. The method preserves model architecture and weights, adding only a single query-conditioned scoring pass at inference. At a 10% refresh budget, CONDUIT achieves 97.0-99.5% of the corresponding full-prefill five-dataset average across three VLM backbones and leads budgeted methods on average; on the MMLongBench-Doc latency subset, it uses 13.5% of full-prefill FLOPs and achieves a 2.99x time-to-first-token speedup.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of Conduit . Visual-prefix changes make exact-prefix KV reuse invalid even when image content recurs. Conduit builds a norm-weighted token score from cached-key query attention and an accessible pre-output cached-value-norm proxy, applies empirical image-level relevance amplification, and recomputes only the highest-scoring visual tokens while reusing the rest.
Figure 2: Conduit refresh-mask construction. Cached values provide a pre-output value-norm proxy, while cached keys and the new query estimate query attention. Their product gives each token’s throughput score; a per-image coefficient reweights scores before a global top- k selector chooses tokens to recompute.
Method
LongDocURL
MMLongBench-Doc
SlideVQA
InfoSeek
ViQuAE
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
Full prefill
56.39 ±0.42
34.19 ±0.44
70.46 ±0.42
44.36 ±0.42
42.58 ±0.44
49.60
Cache reuse
47.93 ±0.35
31.80 ±0.45
64.59 ±0.44
32.34 ±0.40
34.88 ±0.35
42.31
MPIC
48.16 ±0.38
31.35 ±0.40
64.31 ±0.36
42.16 ±0.40
38.00 ±0.40
44.80
CacheBlend
48.02 ±0.42
31.18 ±0.39
64.26 ±0.39
32.60 ±0.36
37.38 ±0.40
42.69
KVShare
48.10 ±0.41
31.51 ±0.37
64.43 ±0.40
32.36 ±0.43
36.33 ±0.37
42.55
ProphetKV
54.35 ±0.40
32.25 ±0.37
68.52 ±0.44
42.30 ±0.40
40.36 ±0.38
47.56
Table 1: Main shifted-prefix results at r=0.10 . Entries are computed with each benchmark’s official metric on three VLM backbones; higher is better. Full prefill and cache reuse are reference anchors, and bold marks the best budgeted method per column (highest mean). Cells report mean ± standard deviation across 5 random seeds (pp); the Avg. column reports the unweighted mean across the five datasets. Complete budget sweeps are in Appendix B .
Figure 3: Budget–quality curves by backbone. Each panel reports the unweighted average over LongDocURL, MMLongBench-Doc, SlideVQA, InfoSeek, and ViQuAE; horizontal lines mark full prefill and zero-refresh cache reuse.
Method
r
MMBench
OCRBench
POPE
MMStar
Avg.
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
Full prefill
–
75.1
82.8
87.5
54.1
74.9
Cache reuse
0
74.7
82.4
87.9
53.4
74.6
Conduit
0.05
74.9
82.7
87.8
54.4
75.0
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
Full prefill
–
78.3
88.4
87.7
60.9
78.8
Table 2: Single-image reuse in the K=1 limit. Entries are computed with each benchmark’s official metric; higher is better. Since c1=1 , Conduit reduces to intra-image throughput selection. At r=0 no visual token is recomputed; at r=0.05 the top-throughput 5% are refreshed.
Method
Score
TFLOPs
TTFT (s)
Speedup
Full prefill
43.59
90.36
0.519
1.00 ×
Cache reuse
41.41
2.47
0.049
10.69 ×
CacheBlend
41.82
11.36
0.180
2.89 ×
MPIC
41.78
9.97
0.090
5.76 ×
KVShare
41.19
11.02
0.284
1.83 ×
ProphetKV
42.06
12.13
0.169
3.07 ×
Table 3: Serving trade-off on a context-stratified MMLongBench-Doc latency subset. Quality, prefill TFLOPs, and TTFT are averaged over three backbones and 4 k/ 8 k/ 16 k contexts. Budgeted methods use r=0.10 ; higher Score and lower TFLOPs / TTFT are better.
λ
LongDocURL
MMLB-Doc
SlideVQA
InfoSeek
ViQuAE
Avg.
0
55.28
33.73
69.79
42.85
41.02
48.53
0.25
55.29
34.06
70.29
43.30
41.27
48.84
0.50
55.92
34.38
70.97
43.30
41.91
49.30
0.75
55.83
34.37
70.59
43.44
41.91
49.23
1.00
56.00
34.40
70.88
43.39
42.00
49.33
Table 4: Sensitivity to image reweighting on Qwen2.5-VL-3B at r=0.10 . Entries use official benchmark metrics; MMLB-Doc abbreviates MMLongBench-Doc. Higher is better. λ=0 is exactly the “drop cj ” ablation.
Variant
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
InternVL3-9B
Conduit (full)
49.33
58.70
55.97
− drop cj
48.53
58.23
55.43
− drop ∥V∥
48.44
57.35
55.44
Table 5: Factor ablation of the composite score ( r=0.10 , averaged over the five shifted-prefix datasets). Dropping the image coefficient sets cj≡1 (intra-image throughput only); dropping the value norm ranks by query attention alone.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
LongDocURL
MMLongBench-Doc
SlideVQA
InfoSeek
ViQuAE
Avg.
Full prefill
56.39 ±0.42
34.19 ±0.44
70.46 ±0.42
44.36 ±0.42
42.58 ±0.44
49.60
Cache reuse
47.93 ±0.35
31.80 ±0.45
64.59 ±0.44
32.34 ±0.40
34.88 ±0.35
42.31
r=0.05
MPIC
47.87 ±0.38
31.66 ±0.43
64.49 ±0.41
40.29 ±0.44
36.78 ±0.39
44.22
CacheBlend
47.61 ±0.45
31.83 ±0.44
64.74 ±0.38
32.42 ±0.36
36.30 ±0.39
42.58
KVShare
47.44 ±0.43
31.89 ±0.35
64.64 ±0.36
32.35 ±0.37
36.05 ±0.40
42.47
Appendix
Table 6: Complete Qwen2.5-VL-3B shifted-prefix results at r∈{0.05,0.10} . Entries are computed with the official metrics for LongDocURL, MMLongBench-Doc, SlideVQA, InfoSeek, and ViQuAE; higher is better. Full prefill and cache reuse are reference anchors, bold marks the best budgeted method per cell (highest mean), and Avg. is the unweighted mean across the five datasets. Cells report mean ± standard deviation across 5 random seeds (pp).
Method
LongDocURL
MMLongBench-Doc
SlideVQA
InfoSeek
ViQuAE
Avg.
Full prefill
65.40 ±0.39
53.43 ±0.44
73.70 ±0.39
54.54 ±0.42
55.58 ±0.41
60.53
Cache reuse
56.59 ±0.42
51.48 ±0.40
68.83 ±0.37
32.46 ±0.39
45.76 ±0.41
51.02
r=0.05
MPIC
55.81 ±0.37
51.81 ±0.36
68.46 ±0.38
46.39 ±0.43
49.06 ±0.35
54.31
CacheBlend
55.87 ±0.41
51.86 ±0.37
68.85 ±0.35
32.68 ±0.36
45.87 ±0.42
51.03
KVShare
56.08 ±0.44
51.42 ±0.37
68.23 ±0.39
32.81 ±0.43
45.76 ±0.44
50.86
Appendix
Table 7: Complete Qwen2.5-VL-7B shifted-prefix results at r∈{0.05,0.10} . Entries are computed with the official metrics for LongDocURL, MMLongBench-Doc, SlideVQA, InfoSeek, and ViQuAE; higher is better. Full prefill and cache reuse are reference anchors, bold marks the best budgeted method per cell (highest mean), and Avg. is the unweighted mean across the five datasets. Cells report mean ± standard deviation across 5 random seeds (pp).
Method
LongDocURL
MMLongBench-Doc
SlideVQA
InfoSeek
ViQuAE
Avg.
Full prefill
57.37 ±0.42
43.28 ±0.40
72.89 ±0.39
51.11 ±0.37
60.17 ±0.42
56.96
Cache reuse
48.01 ±0.43
41.02 ±0.41
65.01 ±0.39
38.09 ±0.44
55.06 ±0.45
49.44
r=0.05
MPIC
47.62 ±0.43
41.77 ±0.37
67.03 ±0.40
42.70 ±0.41
56.28 ±0.37
51.08
CacheBlend
48.27 ±0.37
42.35 ±0.40
66.34 ±0.35
39.88 ±0.37
52.12 ±0.41
49.79
KVShare
48.67 ±0.43
40.50 ±0.42
64.22 ±0.42
38.41 ±0.43
54.97 ±0.42
49.35
Appendix
Table 8: Complete InternVL3-9B shifted-prefix results at r∈{0.05,0.10} . Entries are computed with the official metrics for LongDocURL, MMLongBench-Doc, SlideVQA, InfoSeek, and ViQuAE; higher is better. Full prefill and cache reuse are reference anchors, bold marks the best budgeted method per cell (highest mean), and Avg. is the unweighted mean across the five datasets. Cells report mean ± standard deviation across 5 random seeds (pp).
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
InternVL3-9B
Method
4k
8k
16k
4k
8k
16k
4k
8k
16k
Full prefill
0.145
0.333
0.780
0.260
0.642
1.380
0.182
0.327
0.624
Cache reuse
0.040
0.042
0.052
0.031
0.035
0.054
0.052
0.057
0.074
CacheBlend
0.092
0.137
0.273
0.095
0.161
0.349
0.113
0.149
0.250
MPIC
0.037
0.054
0.096
0.049
0.084
0.184
0.071
0.096
0.140
KVShare
0.116
0.184
0.421
0.124
0.317
0.653
0.128
0.189
0.427
Appendix
Table 9: Time to first token (s) by backbone and context length on the context-stratified MMLongBench-Doc latency subset; lower is better. Budgeted methods (CacheBlend, MPIC, KVShare, ProphetKV, Conduit ) use a 10% refresh budget; full prefill and cache reuse are reference anchors. Averaging across the nine backbone–context settings yields the TTFT column of Table 3 .
Reduction vs. random
Reduction vs. ∥V∥ -only
Rule
r=.05
.10
.20
.30
.50
r=.05
.10
.20
.30
.50
TopK(αˉ)
5.44
11.55
35.68
94.35
530.13
5.40
10.96
33.75
83.97
471.39
TopK(∥V∥)
1.01
1.05
1.06
1.12
1.12
–
–
–
–
–
TopK(αˉ⋅∥V∥)
5.38
11.46
35.46
94.09
535.96
5.34
10.87
33.53
83.74
476.57
Appendix
Table 11: Projected residual-error reduction for selection rules. Each entry is the ratio E(baseline)/E(rule) on 16 LongDocURL prompts (Qwen2.5-VL-3B, layer 24); the baseline is random selection (left block) or TopK(∥V∥) (right block), and higher is better. Dashes mark self-comparison cells, not missing runs.
Table 14
Gap quartile
Accuracy
Evidence-page budget
Ours / full
Ours / raw-attn
Q1 (near tie)
46.2 / 46.7
26.1% / 28.5%
Q2
36.5 / 39.9
36.1% / 34.4%
Q3
42.5 / 43.3
49.7% / 43.7%
Q4
30.3 / 32.9
76.9% / 69.1%
Appendix
Table 14: Accuracy and evidence-page budget by attention-gap quartile on the MMLongBench-Doc evidence-annotated subset (Qwen2.5-VL-3B, r=0.10 ). Metrics are computed within each quartile.
Figure 4: LongDocURL qualitative example. The prompt contains four document pages and asks for the ratio associated with the period 2001–2003 and the row for marriages. Correct answering requires binding the question to the target table tuple within the document context, rather than selecting a salient nearby number.
Vision-Language Models (VLMs) inherit the auto-regressive generation paradigm and cache the keys and values (KV) of all previous tokens to accelerate inference, resulting in memory consumption that scales linearly with context length. This issue is particularly pronounced in VLMs due to substantial redundancy in the visual modality. Although KV cache eviction approaches can effectively reduce inference memory, they often incur significant performance degradation in VLMs, as most are designed for language models and overlook the inherent gap between text and vision. By systematically analyzing the modality gap in VLMs in this work, we argue that the importance of visual information should be grounded in textual guidance and accordingly propose a Text-Grounded KV Eviction method for VLMs (TGV-KV). TGV-KV comprises three submodules: (1) Text-Vision Budgeting (TVB) assigns budget to each layer based on the mutual information interaction. (2) Text-Weighted Ranking (TWR) assesses the priority of text and ranks vision importance based on weighted text-image attention. (3) Text-Prioritised Retention (TPR) policy strategically preserves text KV to avoid acute information loss. We evaluate TGV-KV across five models with different sizes and architectures, showing that TGV-KV preserves 99.2% full-KV accuracy on the VizWiz-VQA task with LLaVA-NeXT and boosts end-to-end throughput by 52.6% with an extreme retention budget of 5%. Code is available at https://github.com/Danielement321/TGV-KV.
Jizhihui Liu, Ruizi Han, Miao Zhang +4
Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen · Peng Cheng Laboratory
Vision-language models (VLMs) project images into hundreds to thousands of visual tokens, making decoder inference expensive in both attention computation and KV-cache memory. Existing visual-token reduction methods largely follow a rank-and-remove paradigm: they score visual tokens, keep a compact subset, and permanently discard the rest. We show that this irreversible action is fragile because visual-token importance changes across decoder depth; tokens ranked low at one stage may become relevant in later layers, especially for grounding-sensitive queries. We propose Reroute, a training-free plug-in that replaces removal with recoverable routing. At each routing stage, selected vision tokens pass through decoder blocks, while deferred tokens bypass the stage and re-enter the candidate pool at the next routing decision. Reroute reuses existing attention-score ranking rules and stage-wise schedules, preserving the theoretical TFLOPs and KV-cache budget class of the pruning method it augments. Across FastV, PDrop, and Nüwa variants on LLaVA-1.5 and Qwen backbones, reroute improves grounding under aggressive token reduction while maintaining general VQA performance. These results suggest that VLM token reduction should not be viewed only as irreversible pruning, but also as recoverable routing. The code can be found here: https://github.com/elmma/mllm-reroute/
Cheng-Yu Yang, Shao-Yuan Lo, Yu-Lun Liu
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · National Taiwan University
Long visual contexts challenge vision-language models: performance degrades as the number of distractors grows, and processing all tokens at once can exceed GPU memory limits. We present RETOKEN, a single learnable embedding that extracts retrieval signals from the VLM's internal representations to select query-relevant visual tokens from the pre-filled KV cache. This enables retrieval within the answering VLM, without a separate retriever or re-encoding. Despite being trained on only a small image-QA dataset, RETOKEN generalizes across image and video benchmarks. On Visual Haystacks, it improves Qwen3VL-8B by 13.4 points and InternVL3.5 by 12.4 points (>20% relative). On LVBench, it transfers zero-shot to long video and improves Qwen3VL-8B by 8.0 points. Thanks to its lightweight design, both training and long-video inference fit on a single H100. Code is available at: https://github.com/avaxiao/ReToken
Yao Xiao, Reuben Tan, Zhen Zhu +3
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign · Microsoft Research · Google DeepMind